Gmail

Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>


"International Law and Agreements: Their Effect upon U.S. Law," by Stephen P. Mulligan, CRS Report (Updated September 19, 2018)


Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>

Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 12:32 PM

To:  smulligan@crs.loc.gov

Cc:  hannahroses111@hotmail.com

Bcc:  [redacted]

 

Re: CRS REPORT 7-5700 (RL32528)

 

TO: 

Stephen P. Mulligan, Legislative Attorney,

Congressional Research Service

 

 

Greetings Mr. Mulligan:

 

Thank you very much for your excellent REPORT above (also attached).

 

We fully intend to study it in detail, and to quote it where relevant,

in support of the following:

 

 

 

 

Please note that Douglas M. Harpool failed to rule either way

on our proper and timely MOTION filed and served in November 2014:

 

 

There was no opposition from any named Cross-Defendants either.

 

 

The fundamental issue -- that we still seek to litigate formally --

is this question which remains without judicially enforceable answers:

 

 

Can the "not self-executing" Declaration appended to ICCPR ratification

be enforced as domestic U.S. law without violating the Petition Clause

(Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition government)

in the First Amendment and without violating the Bicameralism Clause

(U.S. House of Representatives never voted on it)?

 

 

At a bare minimum, the Act of Congress at 28 U.S.C. 2201

should suffice for purposes of judging said ICCPR Declaration

either constitutional or unconstitutional:

 

 

Is the latter statute not an "effective remedy" for violations of the ICCPR,

as required by ICCPR Article 2?  If not, why not?

 

 

We submit to you that the latter Article 2 is also supreme Law of the Land

throughout the USA ipso facto, notwithstanding the "not self-executing" Declaration.

 

Cf. your Footnote 37 in particular, quoting:

 

37  Compare, e.g., Henkin, supra note 36, at 346 (describing non-self-execution RUDs as “against the spirit of the Constitution” because “[t]he Framers intended that a treaty should become law ipso facto, when the treaty is made; it should not require legislative implementation to convert it into United States law”); and Malvina Halberstam, Alvarez-Machain II: The Supreme Court’s Reliance on the Non-Self-Executing Declaration In the Senate Resolution Giving Advice and Consent to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1 J. NAT’L SECURITY L. & POL’Y 89, 95 (2005) (“[A] declaration that a treaty (or treaty provision) that by its terms would be self-executing is not self-executing, is inconsistent with the language, history, and purpose of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.”) with Bradley & Goldsmith, supra note 27, at 446 (arguing that the Constitution does not prohibit the Senate from defining the domestic scope and applicability of a treaty through the use of non-self-execution RUDs).  [emphasis added]

 

[end quote]

 

 

The latter quote from Bradley & Goldsmith also appears to contradict

the Bicameralism Clause by "defining the domestic scope and

applicability of a treaty" but withOUT satisfying the clear requirement

already defined at 1 U.S.C. 101:  the U.S. House of Representatives

must approve all Acts of Congress!

 

 

 

Furthermore, our MOTION above found several other Acts of Congress

that do confer jurisdiction on Federal Courts to adjudicate matters

that arise under the Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the United States,

notably the Habeas Corpus statute at 28 U.S.C. 2241:

 

(3)  He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States;

 

... and Federal question at 28 U.S.C. 1331:

 

all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States

 

The latter statutes clearly honor the Arising Under Clause

at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 in the U.S. Constitution;

as such, the matters now at hand exhibit fundamental

constitutional significance in the USA:

 

 
Section 2.   The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law
and Equity,  arising under  this Constitution,  the Laws  of  the
United States,  and Treaties  made, or which shall be made, under
their Authority; ....

 

We did not find in your excellent REPORT any mention of

the relevant scholarly work by Judge Thomas Buergenthal,

specifically where he cites that same Arising Under Clause.

We have now archived his work on that key point here:

 

 

Perhaps a future Update could address all of Buergenthal's relevant objections,

at a minimum by confronting the obvious conflict that occurs between

the "not self-executing" Declaration and that Arising Under Clause.

 

 

Thank you again for your excellent scholarly contribution

to this ongoing debate about U.S. international treaties,

particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

as previously ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992 with

Reservations, Understandings and Declarations ("RUD")

appended unilaterally without consent or approval by any other

State Parties to that Covenant.

 

 

Cc:  Hannah Rose, UK lawyer for the Peoples of the UK proprio motu

 

 

--

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;

Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),

Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.


All Rights Reserved ( cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308 )


2 attachments

Effects.of.International.Law.and.Agreements.pdf
1933K

36ColumJTransnatlL211.pdf
793K